Ambrose to sue Key

76 comments on “Ambrose to sue Key ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tracey 1

   9 December 2014 at 8:14 am

   ambrose should grab BLiPs list… you know… to make it hard to believe Key has an honest anything, let alone an honest opinion. /sarc
   • seeker 1.1

     9 December 2014 at 2:09 pm

     Well said Tracey. Ambrose should also grab this clip of key showing that he does indeed lie and definitely cannot be relied upon to have an “honest anything”:

     PM John Key grilled on Fletcher’s GCSB appointment
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics-videos/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503464&gal_cid=1503464&gallery_id=131968
2. burt 2

   9 December 2014 at 8:16 am

   Excellent, Key can pass retrospective validations covering 14 years to kill off the court case and the lovers of dictator style government will praise him as the best PM we have ever had for being such a strong leader.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     9 December 2014 at 8:26 am

     Going to repeal the defamation law is he? You’re on fire today 🙄
3. tracey 3

   9 December 2014 at 8:35 am

   Given how much Defamation suits cost the participants versus the likely award, he must have a pretty decent case because the costs award against him if he loses would be big.

   It may be that he will force a settlement from the PM but that has dangers for the Pm too.

   IF you are someone whose opinion is widely regarded and reported there is a duty on you to take much more care than say, people in their normal workplace. The PM would fit this description. The more widely your opinions published and the esteem they are held the more careful you have to be with your words and the reputations of others.
   • Karen 3.1

     9 December 2014 at 9:36 am

     I am puzzled as to why this wasn’t settled out of court. I am assuming it is just another case of Key refusing to apologise. Presumably Crosby Textor once told him to never admit mistakes and he does seem to have got away with it so far, mostly thanks to a compliant MSM.

     This time it is a bit nutty, however. He could so easily have said I made a mistake, here’s some compensation, and it all would have gone away a long time ago. Now, with his reputation starting to lose its shine, this case can only reinforce the idea that Key is arrogant and unable to admit to being wrong.
     • mickysavage 3.1.1

       9 December 2014 at 9:41 am

       And I presume that publication of the tape’s contents is now on the cards …
       • tracey 3.1.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 9:56 am

         I was wondering that Mickey or will it get suppressed?
         • Liberal Realist 3.1.1.1.1

           9 December 2014 at 6:19 pm

           It depends on how damaging the details of this conversation actually are? Considering the tapes are of a conversation between Banks & Key where they (at the time) believe no one is listening, should there be any push for release, I am in no doubt that the release of the tapes will be suppressed! By any means possible.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1.1.1.1

             9 December 2014 at 6:47 pm

             So many Youtube users to kill, so little competence or skill.
             
             • Liberal Realist …

               9 December 2014 at 7:25 pm

               9721 to date! Another job for ‘mr fixit’ Joyce?
4. Jenny Kirk 4

   9 December 2014 at 8:35 am

   These things just won’t go away !

   I should think Key has been looking forward to the summer break, and assuming that next year everyone will have forgotten about cups of tea, dirty politics, John Banks’ crime, Judith Collins’ “indiscretions” etc etc. But it looks like 2015 will have constant reminders – hopefully these will really start to dent his so-called “popularity” as Labour sorts itself out and starts to make a come-back.
5. Dont worry. Be happy 5

   9 December 2014 at 8:46 am

   There is also the funny little flutter he must get in his gut sometimes when he wonders just how many Chinese millionaires on the National Party and ACT donor list are on the run from China for corruption and fraud ….and maybe the things that seem to go along with those traits….now that China seems to want them back. I’m guessing the crooks wont want to be hauled back to Chinese “justice” so I am also guessing they have kept plenty of insurance….against the day that a NZ Government might want to comply with Chinese requests. Interesting times.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1

     9 December 2014 at 8:55 am

     It suits the media to report particular cases before the courts and not others, in the service of particular narratives. Implying spurious links between ethnicity and criminality is one of those narratives.

     Don’t believe the hype 🙂
   • Anne 5.2

     9 December 2014 at 9:19 am

     …how many Chinese millionaires on the National Party and ACT donor list are on the run from China for corruption and fraud ….

     Donghua Liu?
   • Peter Grifffiths 5.3

     9 December 2014 at 9:52 am

     Great point, we forget that the only way to get ahead in china is with the approval and blessing of the Party, the Kowtow still lives. In a funny way , john is uniquely qualified to deal with them, given the similarity with the banking system, and his renowned aquiesence to the holy dollar
   • Minarch 5.4

     9 December 2014 at 10:41 am

     why do you think there are so many bloody $2 shops all over your neighbourhood and malls

     how else do you think they survive when they all sell the same crap paying those sky high mall rents

     all non-perishable stock, small cash transactions , perfect for washing all that crooked cash and better odds of than the pokies !
6. ianmac 6

   9 December 2014 at 9:14 am

   If Key looses, whose money will pay the costs and the damages? I hope that it is not the taxpayers!
   • tracey 6.1

     9 December 2014 at 10:28 am

     IF he is being sued in his capacity of PM I would guess we will all be footing the bill?

     Of course if he said it in his capacity as national party leader… Mickey do you know if we all pay for that?

     And if he is being sued as John Key, we wont be paying.

     I would guess for the matter to stick he would need to be sued as PM and/or Nat party leader to make the duty to take care higher because he would know any statements he makes will get broad publication?

     My guess is our Pm is very welled drilled in what his liabilities are depending on the capacity he was doing something… hence he relies on the defence so often now of

     “it depends on what you mean by “me””
     • ianmac 6.1.1

       9 December 2014 at 10:43 am

       Poor old John. Self-identity confusion. Must wake up each day like an amnesiac. “Woe is me! Just who am I today?”
       I guess he was being the PM but if the case is won by Ambrose, would any mud stick to Key?
       And if settled out of court would we see him as a bit tricky?
       • tracey 6.1.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 10:52 am

         IF the tape might be released as part of non suppressed evidence… my guess is a settlement because

         “The PM is very busy running the country and the cost to taxpayers to defend him and the diversion of his attention from important matters makes it the pragmatic thing to do”

         Of course he will offer to pay for his own defence and not bleed the poor taxpayer for his loose lips…
       • Pascals bookie 6.1.1.2

         9 December 2014 at 11:37 am

         nah, electorate deals and PR photo ops on the campaign trail are as Party Leader, surely.
         • Tracey 6.1.1.2.1

           9 December 2014 at 12:21 pm

           good… the article doesnt say in what capacity and yet they must know from looking at the documents
   • Liberal Realist 6.2

     9 December 2014 at 6:29 pm

     Which hat is being sued?

     PM hat, PMs office hat, NAct leader hat, JK hat… so many hats!

     Which hat was he wearing in this scenario? My pick is the NAct leader hat, whats yours?
7. Blue 7

   9 December 2014 at 9:36 am

   Good on him. It has always stuck with me how the Prime Minister of this country used his office to crush someone so callously.

   Key never made any allowance for the fact that Ambrose could have recorded the conversation inadvertently. He was screaming ‘News of the World style’ accusations, getting the police to raid media organisations and destroying the reputation of a freelance camera guy who didn’t have the resources to stand up to him.

   All because Key was worried that he might have said a swear word in the conversation.

   I hope there will be a legal fees fund for people to contribute to.
   • Chaz 7.1

     9 December 2014 at 11:27 am

     Irrespective of whether Ambrose recorded the conversation inadvertently, it was a conscious decision on his part to distribute copies of the tape.

     So the question of illegality is not his intention in making the recording, it is his clear and undisputed actions in distributing it.

     Personally I think Ambrose is flying a kite, egged on by people with no skin in the game and nothing to lose.

     When he loses this case, as in my opinion he is very likely too, will those who encouraged him to this action, including bloggers on this blog, be fronting up to cover his fees?
     • tracey 7.1.1

       9 December 2014 at 11:32 am

       Have you read the Statement of Claim?

       What do you base the following comment on:

       “When he loses this case, as in my opinion he is very likely too (sic)…”

       Do you think he is suing the Pm because of something written here or, as I believe, based on legal advice from qualified solicitors?

       As an aside is this you?

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-thA7Gv2s68
       • Naki man 7.1.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 1:44 pm

         “Do you think he is suing the Pm because of something written here or, as I believe, based on legal advice from qualified solicitors?’

         tracey do you really think that some solicitors wont be happy to take his money even if he hasn’t got a snowballs chance in hell. Ambrose is probably to stupid to ask what his chances are.
         • Murray Rawshark 7.1.1.1.1

           10 December 2014 at 12:13 am

           Nah, he’s not that stupid. I’ve never seen him comment on Whalespew or Kiwi Bog.
     • Pascals bookie 7.1.2

       9 December 2014 at 11:40 am

       “So the question of illegality is not his intention in making the recording, it is his clear and undisputed actions in distributing it.”

       Really? I seem to remember various legal experts in media law saying the opposite at the time, but I guess you know better huh.

       Thanks.
     • Blue 7.1.3

       9 December 2014 at 1:14 pm

       So the question of illegality is not his intention in making the recording, it is his clear and undisputed actions in distributing it.

       For all your mighty legal knowledge, you don’t seem to understand the basics of defamation law.

       The recording and the subsequent distribution of it are two separate matters. You can argue that Ambrose should have deleted the recording and not passed it to anyone.

       But that has no bearing on the issue of whether the conversation was recorded deliberately or not. Ambrose says it was not, Key said it was, and the police said it was.

       If Ambrose did not record it deliberately, Key and the police are guilty of defaming Ambrose.

       The idea that you can defend a defamatory statement by referring to other alleged illegal/immoral actions by the complainant is fanciful.
       • lprent 7.1.3.1

         9 December 2014 at 1:53 pm

         Feels like a Lauda Finem kind of legal opinion. One made from having frequent observations from the wrong side of the legal system. Fantasies with a dash of high sounding bullshite padded out with repetitions to 5000 words.

         Y’know – academic like.
   • Jimbob 7.2

     9 December 2014 at 11:49 am

     Any allowance he could have made was gone the moment Ambrose handed the “inadvertantly recorded” tapes to the media. If he truly made a mistake (found to be unlawful by the police) then he should have destroyed them.
     • framu 7.2.1

       9 December 2014 at 12:09 pm

       “found to be unlawful by the police”

       isnt that the courts job?
       • lprent 7.2.1.1

         9 December 2014 at 2:05 pm

         Yes. The police can’t find anyone guilty. What they can do is to find enough evidence to charge and put before the courts
         • framu 7.2.1.1.1

           9 December 2014 at 3:13 pm

           so thats the police ambrose could sue for defamation as well – after all publicly declaring someone a criminal would hurt that persons career
8. Anne 8

   9 December 2014 at 10:05 am

   All because Key was worried that he might have said a swear word in the conversation.

   Suspect it might have been a bit more than a swear word. That tea tape saga reminds me of Key’s reaction to the gentleman who tried to jump from the parliamentary debating chamber balcony. He gave Phil Goff the cut-throat gesture as if somehow it was all Goff’s fault.

   Both incidents showed up a deep flaw in his character. When something untoward happens… he lashes out at the nearest and most vulnerable (in his view) target. Then he refuses to admit he might have been wrong and won’t apologise to the innocent target.

   Well, good on you Ambrose. I can imagine the kind of crap you have had to tolerate since it happened.
   • vto 8.1

     10 December 2014 at 8:06 am

     That deep flaw reflects cowardice
9. tc 9

   9 December 2014 at 10:17 am

   Could be timely to hear what Blinky said as the MSM muppets are helping to whitewash his past possibly for a super mayor tilt.

   Is it karma time for the Johnnys maybe.
10. tracey 10

    9 December 2014 at 11:38 am

    “According to legal documents obtained by Radio New Zealand, Mr Ambrose says Mr Key made defamatory comments about him on three occasions. Documents filed by the Prime Minister’s lawyer say the comments are true and that they were John Key’s honest opinion.”

    Usually a defence is filed some time after the Statement of Claim is filed (15-20 working days without an extension). That means whoever passed over the documents waited until the PM’s lawyer had filed his defence.

    I’m still chuckling at the irony of the PM having to rely on the “honesty” defence.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 10.1

      9 December 2014 at 3:26 pm

      Getting Key before a judge will be priceless.

      John Banks had the same problem way back in a civil case. The high court judge said there were discrepancies between his sworn affidavit and his sworn statements in the witness box. ie he LIED.
11. Chaz 11

    9 December 2014 at 11:55 am

    I haven’t seen any statement of claim. I’m basing my comments, which are my opinion, as I stated, on my knowledge of what happened at the time and my knowledge of NZ defamation law and the law as it applies to taping of private conversations.

    And yes, pascals’ bookie, my knowledge in those areas is extensive and I would estimate to be much deeper than a view you are going to receive from a journalist or a media associated person pushing the ‘public interest’ barrow.

    I’d like to see the statement of claim but can’t find it online anywhere, because i’d like to understand just what Ambroseis basing his case on. In defamation, honestly held opinion is a defence in matters of defamation, but an **absolute** defence is Truth.

    If a person is aware at the time they distributed a recording that it was a recording of a private conversation of which they were not a party, then it is an unlawful act under NZ law. And before you ask me, yes I do know this for certain, and yes I do know better than your journo friends.

    Anything John Key says in that context has the defence of truth.

    With respect to Tracey’s question on what Ambrose is basing his claim on, let me say this. Lawyers make money from cases. Work it out love.

    Thanks.
    • Pascals bookie 11.1

      9 December 2014 at 12:01 pm

      And I don’t have any journo friends Chaz. Please retract. Also, you’re a right laugh.
      • Chaz 11.1.1

        9 December 2014 at 12:10 pm

        I withdraw and apologise. You have no Journo friends.
        • Pascals bookie 11.1.1.1

          9 December 2014 at 12:15 pm

          Thanks.

          Now, to the substance, many people, (including but not limited to Steven Price, Andrew Geddis and Dean Knight) would dispute your claim that:

          “If a person is aware at the time they distributed a recording that it was a recording of a private conversation of which they were not a party, then it is an unlawful act under NZ law.”

          There’s an aspect missing. An oversight I’m sure. If the recording wasn’t gathered intentionally, then the matter is still very much alive.
          • Chaz 11.1.1.1.1

            9 December 2014 at 12:17 pm

            They are wrong Pascal’s bookie.

            If you would like a definitive opinion can i make the suggestion that you contact the privacy commissioner and the department of justice.

            The question of intention has no bearing on the matter.
            • Tracey 11.1.1.1.1.1

              9 December 2014 at 12:19 pm

              are you referring to the Crimes Act provision?
            • mickysavage 11.1.1.1.1.2

              9 December 2014 at 12:21 pm

              Chaz

              Do you know who Price, Geddis and Knight are? More respected legal commentators on privacy law I cannot imagine.
              • Pascals bookie …

                9 December 2014 at 12:28 pm

                They are not as knoweldgeable as Chaz from the internet. He says so himself.
              • Chaz …

                9 December 2014 at 12:35 pm

                I’ve read some of their comments Mickey, and they are flawed.

                For example Price states that it is acceptable to make a secret recording of a conversation where you are legitimately a party to the conversation.

                I accept that entirely.

                But what Price does not point out is that:

                1. Ambrose was NOT a legitimate participant to the conversation between Banks and Key.
                2. Even if he was, his ability to distribute the information he recorded is constrained greatly by privacy laws. In such a case a person is still liable if he publishes private information secretly (or openly for that matter) recorded and defining just what that is, is a minefield.

                The fact that Price did not mention these rather salient facts implies that he is either:

                1. Not perhaps as knowledgeable as you think he is; or,
                2. Is a biased and interested commentator who deliberately withholds key information because it does not suit his case.

                Either way his viewpoint is corrupted.

                Just to make a further point. If the recording is so hunky-dory, ask yourself why no reputable news outlet actually published it.

                Surely if it was as cut and dried as posters here are making, then given the overwhelming interest in the matter at the time, and given their resources in terms of legal advice, one of the news co’s would have worked all that out and published.

                They didn’t though did they? And that happened after they took legal advice.
                • Pascals bookie …

                  9 December 2014 at 12:42 pm

                  lol.

                  Does Price claim Ambrose was a party to the conversation? Link plz?

                  Here’s one:

                  http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=525

                  It’s a handy one because it starts by quoting Hosking making similar bold statements as to the ones you make here, and Price gently goes on to point out the number of ways in which he is wrong about the law.
                  • Chaz …

                    9 December 2014 at 1:07 pm

                    Hi

                    If you read your link carefully you will see Price actually makes the statements therein.

                    I did not say by the way that Price was stating that Ambrose was a party to the conversation. I stated that Price made the point that parties to a conversation were allowed to record it, while discussing Ambrose’s case.

                    The technique Price is using in this article is called arguing beside the point. There is no issue with his statement. It is true. but it does not apply to Ambrose and by using it in discussing his defence of Ambrose he is dragging in red herrings, muddying the waters, and other assorted cliches.

                    As I said, Price does not then go on to point out further deficiencies with that argument which if he is as erudite as claimed, must be known to him. It’s clearly a biased viewpoint.

                    The Killer point to all of this is:
                    If I am wrong and he and the rest of the experts you quote are right: Why did no one publish?

                    It’s been interesting discussing this matter today and I always appreciate the courteous exchange of ideas on this blog, but now I must get back to work.

                    In this matter irrespective of my opinion or yours, time will tell, and it will be interesting to see it unfold.

                    Kind regards and best wishes.
                    • Pascals bookie …

                      9 December 2014 at 1:14 pm

                      I heartily recommend that everyone click on the link to Price’s piece, and compare it to how Chaz describes it.

                      It’s a shame Chaz had to go, but unsurprising.
                    • Pascals bookie …

                      9 December 2014 at 1:20 pm

                      iT case you can’t be bothered, here’s what Price has to say regarding prties to a conversation:

                      ” It’s not “illegal to record” someone who doesn’t know they’re being recorded. For a start, a party to the conversation can secretly record it and not breach the Crimes Act. More relevantly, that recording must be intentional.”

                      Note: He puts quotes around ‘illegal to record’ becaus ethat is the claim he is responding to.

                      Note Also: he says ‘More relevantly’ , directly impying that the previous is not really relevant.

                      An odd way to ‘muddy the waters’. He then goes on to detail the more relevant aspect, intent, that Chaz denied was a factor. Chaz has remained silent in this regard

                      Indeed, Chaz does not then go on to point out further deficiencies with that argument which if he is as erudite as claimed, must be known to him. It’s clearly a biased viewpoint.
                    • mickysavage …

                      9 December 2014 at 9:33 pm

                      Um if you are a party to a conversation you can record it.

                      And your point is?

                      BTW what are your legal qualifications?
                • Clemgeopin …

                  9 December 2014 at 1:35 pm

                  I remember reading parts of the conversation published in Newspapers. Don’t you? One point, if I remember correctly, was when it was mentioned that Winston’s voters were all too old and dying.
                • mickysavage …

                  9 December 2014 at 2:14 pm

                  Chaz

                  What are your legal qualifications?

                  Just asking …
                  • ghostwhowalksnz …

                    9 December 2014 at 3:29 pm

                    hes a graduate from the John Key School of Law
            • Pascals bookie 11.1.1.1.1.3

              9 December 2014 at 12:24 pm

              Lol, sure Chaz. ‘They are wrong’.

              Good oh. Chaz from the internet said so.

              Mind you Chaz from the internet who knows stuff about defamation is also predicting an outcome from a case he hasn’t seen the claim for, so discount as much as think relevant.
              • Tracey …

                9 December 2014 at 12:27 pm

                when did the dept of justice start giving legal advice to members of the public
                • Pascals bookie …

                  9 December 2014 at 12:29 pm

                  Just tell them Chaz from the Internet sent you.
                  • Tracey …

                    9 December 2014 at 12:39 pm

                    chuckle
                • Chaz …

                  9 December 2014 at 12:36 pm

                  Since forever Tracey.

                  Give them a call.
                  • Tracey …

                    9 December 2014 at 12:38 pm

                    🙄
    • Tracey 11.2

      9 December 2014 at 12:16 pm

      “work it out love”

      are you serious? i think you are on the wrong blog roger!

      if you havent read the SOC bow can you possibly assess the outcome? you dont even know the 3 alleged defamatory statements. you see? i know what the defences are but determining their success requires

      a. the alleged defamatory statements
      b. factual context

      honest opinion has limitations too.

      you are entitled to your opinion but it isnt based on anything more or less than anyone elses when you dont even know exactly what he is alleging.
      • Chaz 11.2.1

        9 December 2014 at 12:21 pm

        “if [sic] you havent [sic] read the SOC bow[sic] can you possibly assess the outcome?”
        I am in the same position everyone else is here, Tracey, (with the possible difference being that I am actually knowledgeable about the law) and that hasn’t stopped everyone else commenting, now, has it?
        • Tracey 11.2.1.1

          9 December 2014 at 12:24 pm

          where did I say you couldn’t comment? In fact I wrote the opposite. Where did you study for your Degree?
12. Weepus beard 12

    9 December 2014 at 12:14 pm

    You have to laugh when you look at what is on the table at the private meeting: cups & saucers, teapot, two sets of salt & pepper shakers, sugar (presumably), John Key’s elbows, and THIS THING IN A BLACK FELT BAG THAT LOOKS LIKE IN BELONGS TO THE MEDIA WHAT WAS JUST HERE.

    Hardly hidden, secret spy stuff, was it? That evidence alone suggests it was left there by mistake.
    • Anne 12.1

      9 December 2014 at 12:28 pm

      Key jumped to a conclusion based on the circumstantial evidence. He made accusations and defamatory statements against Bradley Ambrose. When he calmed down and was given some sober advice he knew he was wrong but he wasn’t big enough to admit it… so he carried on with a charade that it had been deliberate.

      Now he’s in a hole of his own making. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
    • tc 12.2

      9 December 2014 at 2:03 pm

      Yes that private conversation:
      in a busy newmarket cafe
      at a table specifically reserved out front so it was easy for all to observe
      with media along to record the event
      JB chatting and engaging the likes of Ali Akram waiting for JK to front
      Parker stood back up the road watching the show

      Private conversation…..YEAH RIGHT
    • Clemgeopin 12.3

      9 December 2014 at 2:03 pm

      Key gave it to a nice policeman, who took a look at it and then dutifully gave it back to the journalist who claimed it was his. Watch the episode:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfzXqwvtoEE
13. CATMAN 13

    9 December 2014 at 1:34 pm

    If Ambrose had wanted to secretly record the conversation, it’s not difficult to do it at a distance with the right equipment.

    Given that he presumably has access to such equipment, leaving a mic on the table (ffs) in plain view is reasonable evidence that he didn’t intend it.
14. Skinny 14

    9 December 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Ambrose used poor judgment by sharing the ‘illegal tape recording’ he is on a hiding to nothing, or worst. Mind you his career would have been ruined, he simply would have become damaged goods overnight.

    Someone with deep pockets who makes Key look like loose change in their pocket has put Ambrose up to this. Eventually all the lies catch up and it pisses someone off enough to have a crack.

    You can trust a thief but not a liar as they say, though too many of us it doesn’t quite ring true… thieving liar.
    • Ergo Robertina 14.1

      9 December 2014 at 7:52 pm

      John Key showed poor judgement by having a private conversation during a media stunt, and then acting like a banana republic thug afterwards.
      It was Ambrose’s duty to furnish the recording for the public domain. Do you understand the concept of public interest?
      • Skinny 14.1.1

        9 December 2014 at 8:12 pm

        I understand being asked if you mind being recorded.
        • Ergo Robertina 14.1.1.1

          9 December 2014 at 8:24 pm

          You understand nothing about this case if you have to cling to that strawman.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS